I declare in no uncertain terms, that I am not a believer in Richard Carrier, I don't think he really exists. You shouldn't expect people to believe in something, unless you've got evidence for it, and so if there is a Richard Carrier, then why has he not shown himself to me? In a way, I can understand the mistake, simple people pick up a handful of writings claiming to be written by Richard Carrier, and since a Richard Carrier seems to be a reasonable account for how these writings came to be, through all the similiarites in the texts and so on, they stick with common sense and fallaciously conclude that this Richard Carrier, whom they have never seen with their own eyes, actually exists. Anybody can write a book or internet article these days, and so someone posing as this imaginary Richard Carrier producing writings claiming to be written by this non-existent figure is an infinitely more likely scenario. Likewise, people claiming to be this so-called Richard Carrier can appear on films claiming to be him, and it would fool most people who lack the critical investigative skills to penetrate this fraud.
Some people have claimed to have even seen this Richard Carrier, if you can believe them. Whilst there are no shortages of liars, the human brain is a very very complicated thing, and so dreaming up an imaginary Richard Carrier would be childsplay for it. If you analyse the writings claiming to be written by this Richard Carrier, then you will notice that they say a lot of very silly things. Apart from finding no evidence whatsoever lurking beneath the paragraphs in the mystical realm of blind faith, you will discover on the hand, a large array of egregious logical and factual errors every page and chapter. Belief in Richard Carrier has been responsible for people flooding the internet with lousy, hideously poor researched articles and books, published by incredibly disreputable publishers and organisations, and copying the so called word of Richard Carrier verbatim. I would certainly call this a dangerous delusion, and so, if there is a Richard Carrier, then he has a lot to answer for. My main objection to the Richard Carrier belief, however, is that people are following a delusional Richard Carrier who is telling them what to believe and what to think, when they should be following me.
I shall now offer a series of irrefutable arguments demonstrating the non-existence of Richard Carrier. First off is the argument from inconsistent revelations. Followers of the Richard Carrier claim that their's is the one true faith, yet what of Richard Dawkinsism, Sam Harrisism, and Christopher Hitchensism? The mere existence of religions expressing belief in other so called atheists, refutes the existence of Richard Carrier. Secondly, is the argument from science. Since Science can explain everything, Science can explain the origins of this Richard Carrier belief and the origins of the so-called word of Richard Carrier, without the need for invoking a discredited and superstitious Carrier of the gaps type hypothesis. Even a child should be able to see that followers of Richard Carrier are merely hallucinating, and that the articles and blogs claiming to be written by Richard Carrier are simply the re-arranged writings of earlier writers, stolen to con people into believing in this so-called Richard Carrier in order to turn the population into snide, arrogant arseholes.
Another argument is the argument from contradictory attributes, and in fact serves to refute the existence of a large number of so-called atheists. Atheists are said to be very intelligent, who value logic, reason, critical thinking and evidence. The writings claiming to be written by Richard Carrier contain a plethora of egregious logical fallacies and factual errors. Therefore, Richard Carrier cannot possibly exist, or, if he does, then he is not the Richard Carrier that Richard Carrierists believe in. The Richard Carrier of scripture is also a stupid, arrogant moron who suffers from the Kruger-Dunning effect. How could somebody possibly believe in such a character? Plus, if Richard Carrier made the books and articles, then who made the Richard Carrier? Invoking the existence of a Richard Carrier therefore serves as no solution to the problem of where did this inane rubbish come from? The main argument to prove the existence of Richard Carrier is also logically fallacious.
1. Everything that begins to exist needs a cause.
2. The universe began to exist needs a cause.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Why is Richard Carrier exempt from this, and if he can be eternal, then why can't the universe be eternal? Ha ha, check mate Richard Carrierists! Why assume the cause is Richard Carrier anyway? Stephen Hawking said that the universe created itself from nothing because of gravity, and Roger Penrose said that the universe is part of a cycle of big bangs and big crunches. Some other guy says that our universe is part of a multiverse, and so our universe appeared from nothing when two D-branes collided! Another guy said that the laws of physics caused the universe to happen because they were so clever! Ha, your fancy Richard Carrierism ain't got no explanation for that! Ignore the fact that none of these have any support from evidence or observation, they are scientists, so they must be right! Also ignore the fact that we still have not arrived at an explanation for the universe that also explains its own existence, but my Arichard Carrierism requires me to adopt an anything but Carrier approach.
Also, ignore the fact that this parody commits a category mistake, putting a human on the same footing as a personal, uncaused cause that exists outside of space-time, but if Richard Carrier can do so, by putting Santa Claus on the same footing as God, then why can't I? Tu quoque, quod erat demonstratum.
Too bad, R, to the I, to the C, to the H, you may be the Richy C, with yo PhD, but I'm comin' ma way onto blogspot, to tell you you ain't hot, and that you are much more stupid than I first thought. You see, this battle's been on, for more than an eon, against guys just like you, who had thought they had won. When in actual fact, they've been pwned blue and black, but don't let them be bothered by that. Richy little C may think he knows all, when he don't y'all, and he is so dull. If I had to take my pick, I'd rather eat sick, or spend an afternoon, with a guy like Duane Gish.
Mike Likona refuted the nonsense he spread, and William Lane Craig busted him oops up side the head. Yet he went on to continue, spouting crap that we knew, has been refuted since before, Bertrand Russell was dead. It looks like Richy C, has topped Dicky D, in hiding the evidence atheists don't want us to see. Nothing more than a moron, as see-through as Zordon, give it to 'em JP, and hit this fool with the chorus!
And then there was Lemaitre, studying Einstein which led him to writing a paper, and even though this showed that the universe began, stupid atheists replied that it was a scam, even though they recanted, they still remained slanted, holding to a worldview, which is insane and ill-fated. Time to open your eyes, and get yourself wise, Christianity will rise to be atheism's demise, and while Richy C cries, crying "why Darwin, why?!", I'll still be poppin' ma collar, as I laugh as you holla.
And if that seems a bit much, Richard Carrier fans, it's just a joke. But, coincidentally... as well as it being a joke, it's also what I actually believe.
Nah, not really. You see, what I was doing there, as all of my regular readers recognise, just in case there is anyone from The Richard Carrier Project reading this, is that I was using an exaggerated form of the rhetoric and implied values of Richard Carrier, to satirise the rhetoric and implied values of Richard Carrier. It is a shame to have to break character and point this out to you, but it should hopefully save you a tedious, dull, lengthy exchange of emails. Although it is doubtful that anything I say can rouse you from your alcohol and porn induced comas.
Monday, 27 December 2010
Sunday, 26 December 2010
Responding to Dawkins' Drivel
I am what I would like to say an avid Guardian reader, well, when I am not busy using Polly Toynbee articles as toilet paper, but I came across a rather "interesting" article by none other than Richard Dawkins, about religion, at Christmas time. (Richard Dawkins, A Shameful Thought For the Day, 24 December 2010)Believe you me when I say I didn't even have to start reading, I had already assumed face-palm stance. I guess I should not be surprised that eventually some idiot would leave the old fart alone with a computer and something religious in nature to complain about around Christmas time, but I assumed that it would be some second-rate publication. Not that I want to spend an entire letter simply insulting Richard Dawkins, but reading his article was like having chilli rubbed into my eyes and then being forced to watch a thirty minute still of naked old people... all in glorious 3D HD.
I should probably start off by pointing out that getting Richard Dawkins to write on religion would be like getting Duane Gish, Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort to write a college biology textbook. I am still trying to deduce what led to someone giving this pile of festering carcass the green light, but if I had to hazard a guess, I would have to say that it was probably cocaine. Dawkins, true to form, begins with a highly emotive, hideously over-exaggerated barely asserted character assassination attempt. Dawkins writes:
"We've already had what little apology we are going to get (none in most cases) for the raped children, the Aids-sufferers in Africa, the centuries spent attacking Jews, science, women and "heretics", the indulgences and more modern (and tax-deductible) methods of fleecing the gullible to build the Vatican's vast fortune."
Oh really? I take it Dawkins is limiting raped children to those raped by priests, and not every child who has been a rape victim, otherwise that would be quite absurd. Yet, the Vatican has already apologised for this, and the current pope has lamented that they have not done more. As for the rest, I don’t particularly have any issue with, although I would like to see some evidence that directly ties the Vatican to the spread of AIDS in Africa, or that the Catholic Church have been responsible for suppressing science.
You see, I am on a history degree, and have spent the last semester studying European Medieval history, and Dawkins’ claims don’t really seem to jibe with the facts, given that nobody has ever been persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church for their scientific views. Galileo got into trouble mostly because he insulted the pope at the time, but also because of his sloppy methodology and extremely arrogant attitude. Furthermore, Galileo’s observations actually supported the Tychonic model, and not the Copernican heliocentric model. Gee, Richard, don’t let the facts get in the way of your hate-filled psychotic ranting, eh? I mean, then people would be able to see what a pseudo-intellectual know-nothing you really are.
I have to ask, how did Dawkins commit such an egregious factual error? It seems to me as if Richard Dawkins is implying that Christians, and in particular Catholics, the largest donators to charity in the world, are actually part of a millennia old secret cabal, hell bent on a Blofeld-esque maniacal scheme to plot the demise of the world's population in secret and generally stab everyone in the back at the most inconvenient moment, that is, if they can fit it into their busy schedule of betraying their country, sponsoring international terrorism and stealing candy from small children. Atheists are supposedly always the real deal, yet the 52 atheists responsible for the murders of 185,000,000 of their own citizens in peacetime, within the time scale of 100 years, are somehow exempt from this. Supposedly, they are not "real atheists" whatever that is supposed to mean, given that Dawkins et al. have tried to re-define atheism to mean a lack of belief in God or gods, as opposed to the actual definition, that is someone who does not believe in God or gods.
Since Dawkins is committed to such an absurd conspiracy theory, he is therefore required to jettison any facts that disprove his illusory delusions. I guess he is not that confident in his own position as he would have us believe, although I suppose that he would quip that he doesn't know and is "humble" enough to admit it, but it is interesting how Dawkins, despite rallying against ignorance, gives his own a free pass. It interests me greatly how Dawkins claims the biggest givers to charity are the cause of the world’s ills, yet he does absolutely nothing to try to help anyone. He just sits on his backside, in his comfy cream-puff quixotic and onanistic delusional fantasy world, where he instead slags off those actually taking their time to help their fellow humans. Oh, that's right, Dawkins does not care for evidence, reason or logic, he just wants to make an appeal to emotion, a trick that only works on the intellectually crippled. No wonder then, why so many atheists lap up Dawkins' bile as if it were their mother's milk.
Dawkins then goes on to demonstrate his total lack of expertise when it comes to religion. In fact, Dawkins demonstrates a total inability to think whatsoever. Instead of providing some kind of argument, he just makes more highly emotive barely asserted character assassination attempts. Dawkins complains about the same of Christ’s death, without realising that this serves as a buttress for Christian Theism. This would have been a huge turn-off for people in the 1st century AD Greco-Roman world, so much so that the Romans, known for the love of blood and guts, avoided mentioning it, it was THAT shameful and gruesome. In fact, just about everything about Christianity was not only a turn-off but was also offensive to 1st century AD Greco-Roman (and Jewish) cultural and religious beliefs and practices. So much so, that Christianity was brutally repressed for hundreds of years. That makes sense. Invent a religion that is offensive to everybody and will get you killed. Why the hell would anybody want to make it up, or join it for that matter? Unless it was actually true, but why would Dawkins consider that possibility? Oh right, because the evidence actually strongly favours that option, and we can’t have that, can we?
Dawkins goes on about Original Sin, as if it were a universal Christian belief. Sorry, but that doesn’t wash. Whilst Original Sin is a load of nonsense, it is not a required doctrine of Christianity. It has long been recognised that Genesis is a metaphoric description of how all humans disobey God. Even if you disprove the existence of Adam, it does not magically make the fact that no human is perfect, and that the majority of humans are morally reprehensible, self-centred, egocentric morons. I would be particularly interested in seeing Dawkins trying to deny the obvious fact that humans are in dire need of salvation. As a side note, I do find it interesting how Dawkins claims that Adam never existed, and yet provides no evidence for this assertion whatsoever. Smooth. Dawkins then asks, why did God not just forgive us. Interesting. By that logic, why does the judge just not forgive the criminals and let them go without them being punished. Nice save.
I suppose Dawkins would counter that God cold have just made us perfect, but this is a stupid argument for the simple fact that, if God has done so, then we would have just been mindless robots with no Free Will. Salvation cannot be earned without redemption, and a relationship with God does not mean anything if it is not made freely. It is truly amazing how Dawkins' academic credentials and evidentiary standards are simply tossed out of the window and flushed down the toilet when it comes to religion. This from the man whose job supposedly is to help the public to better understand science. Clearly the job would be better suited to someone else, namely somebody who has the self-control to keep their religious views to themselves, instead of going on about it at great length at any opportune moment, no matter how inappropriate it is, to anybody within earshot.
I would like to bring up the philosophical device known as Occam's Razor, which states that for any given set of circumstances, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Why does Dawkins say the things that he does? Well, the simplest explanation is, because he has the intellectual ability of a mentally retarded twelve-year-old boy. People may take offence at my estimation of Dawkins' ability to debate and discuss religion, but you cannot deny that it is philosophically correct. Dawkins would be more productive if he simply participated in a freestyle rap ensemble with Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, PZ Meyers, Eugenie Scott and an actor portraying Charles Darwin. Note that if Dawkins were to actually do this, not only would I pay money to see it, but also I would personally shake him by the hand.
I would like to close by pointing out how that it was ignorant morons like Dawkins which led me to reject atheism and embrace theism, specifically Christian theism. Dawkins presents himself as a man of science and reason, yet comes off as nothing more than a sententious, acrimonious, supercilious, pusillanimous, calumnious, censorious, vituperative, querulous, embittered, obsessive and bombastic moron, who spouts nothing but intolerance and bigotry laden arguments full of non-sequiturs, caricatures, straw men and vitriol. I am currently writing my own book refuting the lies and misinformation spread by Dawkins and his fellow backwards-thinking fundamentalist simians and hope to have it out in a year or two. Who knows, maybe people will read it, and actually learn something for once, instead of taking the words of just some guy whose expertise is in a totally unrelated field, on blind-faith. I won’t be holding my breath.
I should probably start off by pointing out that getting Richard Dawkins to write on religion would be like getting Duane Gish, Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort to write a college biology textbook. I am still trying to deduce what led to someone giving this pile of festering carcass the green light, but if I had to hazard a guess, I would have to say that it was probably cocaine. Dawkins, true to form, begins with a highly emotive, hideously over-exaggerated barely asserted character assassination attempt. Dawkins writes:
"We've already had what little apology we are going to get (none in most cases) for the raped children, the Aids-sufferers in Africa, the centuries spent attacking Jews, science, women and "heretics", the indulgences and more modern (and tax-deductible) methods of fleecing the gullible to build the Vatican's vast fortune."
Oh really? I take it Dawkins is limiting raped children to those raped by priests, and not every child who has been a rape victim, otherwise that would be quite absurd. Yet, the Vatican has already apologised for this, and the current pope has lamented that they have not done more. As for the rest, I don’t particularly have any issue with, although I would like to see some evidence that directly ties the Vatican to the spread of AIDS in Africa, or that the Catholic Church have been responsible for suppressing science.
You see, I am on a history degree, and have spent the last semester studying European Medieval history, and Dawkins’ claims don’t really seem to jibe with the facts, given that nobody has ever been persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church for their scientific views. Galileo got into trouble mostly because he insulted the pope at the time, but also because of his sloppy methodology and extremely arrogant attitude. Furthermore, Galileo’s observations actually supported the Tychonic model, and not the Copernican heliocentric model. Gee, Richard, don’t let the facts get in the way of your hate-filled psychotic ranting, eh? I mean, then people would be able to see what a pseudo-intellectual know-nothing you really are.
I have to ask, how did Dawkins commit such an egregious factual error? It seems to me as if Richard Dawkins is implying that Christians, and in particular Catholics, the largest donators to charity in the world, are actually part of a millennia old secret cabal, hell bent on a Blofeld-esque maniacal scheme to plot the demise of the world's population in secret and generally stab everyone in the back at the most inconvenient moment, that is, if they can fit it into their busy schedule of betraying their country, sponsoring international terrorism and stealing candy from small children. Atheists are supposedly always the real deal, yet the 52 atheists responsible for the murders of 185,000,000 of their own citizens in peacetime, within the time scale of 100 years, are somehow exempt from this. Supposedly, they are not "real atheists" whatever that is supposed to mean, given that Dawkins et al. have tried to re-define atheism to mean a lack of belief in God or gods, as opposed to the actual definition, that is someone who does not believe in God or gods.
Since Dawkins is committed to such an absurd conspiracy theory, he is therefore required to jettison any facts that disprove his illusory delusions. I guess he is not that confident in his own position as he would have us believe, although I suppose that he would quip that he doesn't know and is "humble" enough to admit it, but it is interesting how Dawkins, despite rallying against ignorance, gives his own a free pass. It interests me greatly how Dawkins claims the biggest givers to charity are the cause of the world’s ills, yet he does absolutely nothing to try to help anyone. He just sits on his backside, in his comfy cream-puff quixotic and onanistic delusional fantasy world, where he instead slags off those actually taking their time to help their fellow humans. Oh, that's right, Dawkins does not care for evidence, reason or logic, he just wants to make an appeal to emotion, a trick that only works on the intellectually crippled. No wonder then, why so many atheists lap up Dawkins' bile as if it were their mother's milk.
Dawkins then goes on to demonstrate his total lack of expertise when it comes to religion. In fact, Dawkins demonstrates a total inability to think whatsoever. Instead of providing some kind of argument, he just makes more highly emotive barely asserted character assassination attempts. Dawkins complains about the same of Christ’s death, without realising that this serves as a buttress for Christian Theism. This would have been a huge turn-off for people in the 1st century AD Greco-Roman world, so much so that the Romans, known for the love of blood and guts, avoided mentioning it, it was THAT shameful and gruesome. In fact, just about everything about Christianity was not only a turn-off but was also offensive to 1st century AD Greco-Roman (and Jewish) cultural and religious beliefs and practices. So much so, that Christianity was brutally repressed for hundreds of years. That makes sense. Invent a religion that is offensive to everybody and will get you killed. Why the hell would anybody want to make it up, or join it for that matter? Unless it was actually true, but why would Dawkins consider that possibility? Oh right, because the evidence actually strongly favours that option, and we can’t have that, can we?
Dawkins goes on about Original Sin, as if it were a universal Christian belief. Sorry, but that doesn’t wash. Whilst Original Sin is a load of nonsense, it is not a required doctrine of Christianity. It has long been recognised that Genesis is a metaphoric description of how all humans disobey God. Even if you disprove the existence of Adam, it does not magically make the fact that no human is perfect, and that the majority of humans are morally reprehensible, self-centred, egocentric morons. I would be particularly interested in seeing Dawkins trying to deny the obvious fact that humans are in dire need of salvation. As a side note, I do find it interesting how Dawkins claims that Adam never existed, and yet provides no evidence for this assertion whatsoever. Smooth. Dawkins then asks, why did God not just forgive us. Interesting. By that logic, why does the judge just not forgive the criminals and let them go without them being punished. Nice save.
I suppose Dawkins would counter that God cold have just made us perfect, but this is a stupid argument for the simple fact that, if God has done so, then we would have just been mindless robots with no Free Will. Salvation cannot be earned without redemption, and a relationship with God does not mean anything if it is not made freely. It is truly amazing how Dawkins' academic credentials and evidentiary standards are simply tossed out of the window and flushed down the toilet when it comes to religion. This from the man whose job supposedly is to help the public to better understand science. Clearly the job would be better suited to someone else, namely somebody who has the self-control to keep their religious views to themselves, instead of going on about it at great length at any opportune moment, no matter how inappropriate it is, to anybody within earshot.
I would like to bring up the philosophical device known as Occam's Razor, which states that for any given set of circumstances, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Why does Dawkins say the things that he does? Well, the simplest explanation is, because he has the intellectual ability of a mentally retarded twelve-year-old boy. People may take offence at my estimation of Dawkins' ability to debate and discuss religion, but you cannot deny that it is philosophically correct. Dawkins would be more productive if he simply participated in a freestyle rap ensemble with Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, PZ Meyers, Eugenie Scott and an actor portraying Charles Darwin. Note that if Dawkins were to actually do this, not only would I pay money to see it, but also I would personally shake him by the hand.
I would like to close by pointing out how that it was ignorant morons like Dawkins which led me to reject atheism and embrace theism, specifically Christian theism. Dawkins presents himself as a man of science and reason, yet comes off as nothing more than a sententious, acrimonious, supercilious, pusillanimous, calumnious, censorious, vituperative, querulous, embittered, obsessive and bombastic moron, who spouts nothing but intolerance and bigotry laden arguments full of non-sequiturs, caricatures, straw men and vitriol. I am currently writing my own book refuting the lies and misinformation spread by Dawkins and his fellow backwards-thinking fundamentalist simians and hope to have it out in a year or two. Who knows, maybe people will read it, and actually learn something for once, instead of taking the words of just some guy whose expertise is in a totally unrelated field, on blind-faith. I won’t be holding my breath.
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
I'll Be Back, Therefore I Am: A Refutation of Materialism
I was asked to do a blog post on my videos of the Philosophy of Mind stuff I did on YouTube, but most of that, if not all, is already covered in a previous blog post. This blog post shall instead be a mass refutation of materialism, that way, I will have way more to write about than if I just focused on dualism and philosophy of mind. Why is materialism false? Many reasons:
P1 If materialism is true, then it logically follows that reductionism and determinism are also true.
P2 If reductionism and determinism are true, then consciousness cannot exist.
P3 Consciousness exists.
C Therefore, materialism is false.
In a material universe, only physical matter and energy exist. Therefore, everything that exists is composed solely of physical matter and energy. Physical matter and energy can only behave in ways that physical matter and energy behave. So, human action would simply be the result of the interactions of atoms, etc. and not the result of actual choice. Human action would be able to be determined by equations. However, this is not so. Furthermore, if all that exists is physical matter and energy, where does consciousness come from? This is where things get bad for the materialist.
First we have the Turing Test. Person A is locked in a room with a computer. With this computer he can talk to two different people over a network using instant messaging software. One of these persons is an actual human being, aka Person B, but the other "person" is an AI chat bot. Person A has to figure out which one is Person B, the real human, and which one is the AI chat bot. To date, no AI has EVER passed the Turing Test. AI chat bots have always been eventually stumped in conversation, by language it cannot understand. This is probably being too harsh on AIs, as it is conceivable that, eventually, at some point in time, it is possible that one day an AI will be able to fool people into thinking it is human. However, if such thing is possible, we are very far indeed from such a possibility. Yet, this is not a major problem for materialists, what IS a gigantic problem is that even if an AI can pass a Turing Test, we have no way of knowing if it is actually conscious as we are.
Enter the Chinese room argument. A man is locked in a room. A letter written in Chinese is slid under the door, yet he cannot understand Chinese. He has instructions in English that tell him how to respond, yet the instruction do not reveal the meaning of the Chinese symbols. He writes his reply and slides it under the door. The person on the other side reads the letter and assumes that it was written by someone with a good understanding of the Chinese language. The man is not aware of the meaning of the symbols, yet is still able to have a discussion with someone in Chinese. Imagine a vast collection of human beings, one for each cell there is in the human body, performing tasks each cell would normally fulfil. They combine together to form a single superhuman 'zord' if you will. None of them are aware of the meaning of the information they send. Would this 'zord' be conscious? In a strictly materialist view, each person is simply the sum of their parts, and none of these parts themselves possess consciousness. In a stictly materialist universe, living things should, theoretically, only be mindless automatons, unconscious robots blind to the cycle of cause and effect that they are caught in.
Yet, this is not the case. Humans are aware of their surroundings, they are aware of the meaning of the information they convey to other humans, they are aware of the meaning of the information they perceive. What is most interesting of all, is that humans have the ability to choose. The situations we find ourselves in are often beyond our control, yet we still possess an ability to think, to reason, to process information and develop a plan. If materialism were true, then this should all be automatic, unconscious and immediate. People should only ever behave in ways that would further their own survival. Yet not only are we aware of all of this thinking and reasoning, we are capable of abstract thinking, thinking about the noumenal in addition to the phenomenal. We are also able to readily defy natural selection, and thus cause and effect. Our personal decisions are not based on physical laws, but are deliberate and arbitrary. We are even capable of going against our 'natural' or 'gut' feelings, instincts and even subconscious reactions can be overcome with enough effort.
We are aware of our existence, we are aware of our 'self'. Yet what are we? Are we our bodies, a precise configuration of cells? The answer is no, as our cells die and are replaced by news cells on a daily basis. What about our brains? This is the materialist's trump card. The materialist will bring up brain damage and split brain research as some kind of definite proof, the ultimate refutation of dualism and the single evidence to prove the validity of materialism. Yet, ironically, nothing they cite actually proves materialism. When people suffer brain damage, they sometimes suffer a change in personality, and can lose functions. Diseases of the brain have a similar effect. This is proof, say the materialists, that we, our 'selves' are our brains. Yet, this is a massive non-sequitur. Think of how we perceive the world. We have our sensual organ which take in data, we have nerves which transmit data and we have our brains which process the data. If any of these are damaged, then the way we perceive reality is altered. The most important of these is the brain. If the way we actually process information is altered, then what effects would this have in the dualist system? Quite a lot, as we would expect. In a dualist system, we, our 'selves' interact with the physical world through our brains, through our physical brains.
To use an analogy, think of a person in a sealed room, within a giant robot. The only information they have about the outside world comes to them from the robots sensory apparatus, yet this is filtered to them via an onboard computer. When the computer is damaged, the information can be altered, and thus the person could receive unreliable data. Furthermore, the commands the person enters into the computer to control the robot can be altered so that the robot behaves differently to how the person wants them to behave. Of course, a more accurate analogy would be the movie Avatar, where people control artificial bodies but can 'feel' everything the body feels as if it were actually them. When a person is brain damaged, the same principle applies. Plus, brain damage can cause memory loss. If your perception of reality is altered, then you need to learn to make sense of it again and if you forgot who you are, then you are free to reinvent yourself. Far from demonstrating materialism, this serves as a buttress for dualism.
Another problem with materialism is that it cannot explain nor account for information. Language, art, and so on. The words of these blog mean something to those who read them. A person who cannot read English would be unable to understand their meaning, to them it would just be a collection of lines and dots. Of course, over time, they might be able to translate it, yet even a person who cannot understand English recognises that there is some kind of information present as the letters are arranged in definite patterns instead of being randomly disordered. Information requires a conscious intelligence, yet materialism cannot account for consciousness, let alone a conscious intelligence. This is a philosophical question beyond the realms of scientific enquiry, yet the only tool the materialist will use is science. This is because the materialist believes all that exists is physical matter and energy, and so believes science, which explains how matter and energy behave (to put it incredibly simply) can therefore explain everything. Yet, the fact that there are things that science cannot answer or expain is lost on the materialist, even after it is pointed out to them.
For instance, mathematical and logical truths are beyond the realms of scientific enquiry. Science presupposes logic and mathematics, and so to use science to explain a logical or mathematical question would be to argue in a circle. Science has no bearing when it comes to moral and aesthetic values. The good and the beautiful are not things that are quantifiable, testable or able to be repeated in an experiment. Science has no bearing on metaphysical truths, such as, there are minds other than my own, the world was not created 6,000 years ago with the appearance of age, I am not a brain in a vat and so on. Science cannot even be used to demonstrate the scientific method, the validity of the senses and so on. Science cannot answer 'why questions either, only 'how' questions. For example, science can explain how a car is made, but it cannot explain why a certain car was made. Science has no bearing on personal agents. The choices of a personal agent are inaccesible to the scientific method. As useful as science is, it is limited, and so therefore not the only source of information we have about reality and how things work. If materialism were true, then this simply would not be so. I can do something for a specific purpose, such as draw a picture. You can measure all sorts of quanifiable aspects, yet science is unable to detect the purpose, the 'why question'.
Another major problem with materialism, is that it cannot account or explain for why there are physical laws or constants in the first place. Given that science presupposes such laws, to explain their existence using science, is, again, circular. Science is more or less contained to explaining how mass-energy behaves within our space-time, yet science is unable to answer 'why' mass-energy behaves within our space-time the way that it does. In the initial conditions of the universe, there were no laws or constants that mass-energy followed. For a brief time, there was total chaos. Order did not arise until later. A ridiculously small time beyond our comprehension, but a period of time nonetheless. Mass-Energy could behave any way, if we assume materialism, it could behave randomly, without order. Yet mass-energy behaves in an ordered way, and an ordered way in which intelligent life is possible.
Furthermore, science is totally unable to provide an account of how space-time and mass-energy came into existence. I'm sure that various people will clamour over string theory, or multiverses or some other some such drivel. Repeat after me: THERE IS NO OBSERVABLE OR TESTABLE EVIDENCE FOR THESE. They are not even theories, but simply nice ideas. Some of them aren't even capable of being tested, and so I wonder why they are even regarded at all, let alone as science. Of course, when you assume materialism, you have to assume an 'anything but God' approach, to be logically consistent you see. Furthermore, none of these actually explain how there is something rather than nothing, let alone why. The idea that the universe created itself 'out of nothing' is logically impossible, and the idea of the multiverse only pushes back the problem. Until we can reach a terminating explanation that not only provides an adequate explanation for our existence, but also its own existence, then we are no closer to an answer, either to how or why we are here. Since science is the only tool avaiable to the materialist, materialism fails and fails spectacularly hard.
Lastly, materialism is logically incoherent and self-refuting. How does one prove materialism? The simple answer is one cannot, given that conscious beings are an impossibility in a materialist universe, by the very definition of materialism. Even if conscious beings were magically possible in a materialist universe, it gets no easier. What are our tools? Science? Science can only inform us about the physical, yet that science cannot provide us information about the non-physical is another point that is lost on materialists even when pointed out to them. Using science to prove the existence of the non-physical would be like trying to detect mass with a ruler or length with a set of scales. You cannot not magically decide that something does not exist, because your measuring tool cannot detect what it is you are trying to discover. So, to turn around and say that the thing your tool can measure is the only thing that does exist is circular reasoning. There are other problems with materialism too. If materialism and natural selection are true at the same time, then we have no way of knowing what beliefs are true or not. Because our brains evolved to aid our survival, not to provide us with true beliefs, and so if we lack a component not beholden to natural selection, such as a non-physical mind, then we have no way of knowing what beliefs are true.
And so there we have it. I, therefore I am. I am, therefore materialism is false. I'll be back, therefore you should stay tuned for later blogs, and, of corse, YouTube videos. I am currently working on my book, but when I get back to my uni room after Christmas, I shall be doing a hilarious video about a YouTube user named BionicDance, who has incurred my wrath for being a douchebag to two thoroughly decent chaps I am friends with, despite their best attempts to reason with them. Thank you, much love and goodnight.
- Materialism cannot explain or account for consciousness.
- Materialism cannot explain or account for free will.
- Materialism cannot explain or account for information.
- Materialism cannot explain or account for the laws and constants of physics.
- Materialism cannot explain or account for the origin of the universe.
- Materialism is logically self-contradictory and is untestable.
P1 If materialism is true, then it logically follows that reductionism and determinism are also true.
P2 If reductionism and determinism are true, then consciousness cannot exist.
P3 Consciousness exists.
C Therefore, materialism is false.
In a material universe, only physical matter and energy exist. Therefore, everything that exists is composed solely of physical matter and energy. Physical matter and energy can only behave in ways that physical matter and energy behave. So, human action would simply be the result of the interactions of atoms, etc. and not the result of actual choice. Human action would be able to be determined by equations. However, this is not so. Furthermore, if all that exists is physical matter and energy, where does consciousness come from? This is where things get bad for the materialist.
First we have the Turing Test. Person A is locked in a room with a computer. With this computer he can talk to two different people over a network using instant messaging software. One of these persons is an actual human being, aka Person B, but the other "person" is an AI chat bot. Person A has to figure out which one is Person B, the real human, and which one is the AI chat bot. To date, no AI has EVER passed the Turing Test. AI chat bots have always been eventually stumped in conversation, by language it cannot understand. This is probably being too harsh on AIs, as it is conceivable that, eventually, at some point in time, it is possible that one day an AI will be able to fool people into thinking it is human. However, if such thing is possible, we are very far indeed from such a possibility. Yet, this is not a major problem for materialists, what IS a gigantic problem is that even if an AI can pass a Turing Test, we have no way of knowing if it is actually conscious as we are.
Enter the Chinese room argument. A man is locked in a room. A letter written in Chinese is slid under the door, yet he cannot understand Chinese. He has instructions in English that tell him how to respond, yet the instruction do not reveal the meaning of the Chinese symbols. He writes his reply and slides it under the door. The person on the other side reads the letter and assumes that it was written by someone with a good understanding of the Chinese language. The man is not aware of the meaning of the symbols, yet is still able to have a discussion with someone in Chinese. Imagine a vast collection of human beings, one for each cell there is in the human body, performing tasks each cell would normally fulfil. They combine together to form a single superhuman 'zord' if you will. None of them are aware of the meaning of the information they send. Would this 'zord' be conscious? In a strictly materialist view, each person is simply the sum of their parts, and none of these parts themselves possess consciousness. In a stictly materialist universe, living things should, theoretically, only be mindless automatons, unconscious robots blind to the cycle of cause and effect that they are caught in.
Yet, this is not the case. Humans are aware of their surroundings, they are aware of the meaning of the information they convey to other humans, they are aware of the meaning of the information they perceive. What is most interesting of all, is that humans have the ability to choose. The situations we find ourselves in are often beyond our control, yet we still possess an ability to think, to reason, to process information and develop a plan. If materialism were true, then this should all be automatic, unconscious and immediate. People should only ever behave in ways that would further their own survival. Yet not only are we aware of all of this thinking and reasoning, we are capable of abstract thinking, thinking about the noumenal in addition to the phenomenal. We are also able to readily defy natural selection, and thus cause and effect. Our personal decisions are not based on physical laws, but are deliberate and arbitrary. We are even capable of going against our 'natural' or 'gut' feelings, instincts and even subconscious reactions can be overcome with enough effort.
We are aware of our existence, we are aware of our 'self'. Yet what are we? Are we our bodies, a precise configuration of cells? The answer is no, as our cells die and are replaced by news cells on a daily basis. What about our brains? This is the materialist's trump card. The materialist will bring up brain damage and split brain research as some kind of definite proof, the ultimate refutation of dualism and the single evidence to prove the validity of materialism. Yet, ironically, nothing they cite actually proves materialism. When people suffer brain damage, they sometimes suffer a change in personality, and can lose functions. Diseases of the brain have a similar effect. This is proof, say the materialists, that we, our 'selves' are our brains. Yet, this is a massive non-sequitur. Think of how we perceive the world. We have our sensual organ which take in data, we have nerves which transmit data and we have our brains which process the data. If any of these are damaged, then the way we perceive reality is altered. The most important of these is the brain. If the way we actually process information is altered, then what effects would this have in the dualist system? Quite a lot, as we would expect. In a dualist system, we, our 'selves' interact with the physical world through our brains, through our physical brains.
To use an analogy, think of a person in a sealed room, within a giant robot. The only information they have about the outside world comes to them from the robots sensory apparatus, yet this is filtered to them via an onboard computer. When the computer is damaged, the information can be altered, and thus the person could receive unreliable data. Furthermore, the commands the person enters into the computer to control the robot can be altered so that the robot behaves differently to how the person wants them to behave. Of course, a more accurate analogy would be the movie Avatar, where people control artificial bodies but can 'feel' everything the body feels as if it were actually them. When a person is brain damaged, the same principle applies. Plus, brain damage can cause memory loss. If your perception of reality is altered, then you need to learn to make sense of it again and if you forgot who you are, then you are free to reinvent yourself. Far from demonstrating materialism, this serves as a buttress for dualism.
Another problem with materialism is that it cannot explain nor account for information. Language, art, and so on. The words of these blog mean something to those who read them. A person who cannot read English would be unable to understand their meaning, to them it would just be a collection of lines and dots. Of course, over time, they might be able to translate it, yet even a person who cannot understand English recognises that there is some kind of information present as the letters are arranged in definite patterns instead of being randomly disordered. Information requires a conscious intelligence, yet materialism cannot account for consciousness, let alone a conscious intelligence. This is a philosophical question beyond the realms of scientific enquiry, yet the only tool the materialist will use is science. This is because the materialist believes all that exists is physical matter and energy, and so believes science, which explains how matter and energy behave (to put it incredibly simply) can therefore explain everything. Yet, the fact that there are things that science cannot answer or expain is lost on the materialist, even after it is pointed out to them.
For instance, mathematical and logical truths are beyond the realms of scientific enquiry. Science presupposes logic and mathematics, and so to use science to explain a logical or mathematical question would be to argue in a circle. Science has no bearing when it comes to moral and aesthetic values. The good and the beautiful are not things that are quantifiable, testable or able to be repeated in an experiment. Science has no bearing on metaphysical truths, such as, there are minds other than my own, the world was not created 6,000 years ago with the appearance of age, I am not a brain in a vat and so on. Science cannot even be used to demonstrate the scientific method, the validity of the senses and so on. Science cannot answer 'why questions either, only 'how' questions. For example, science can explain how a car is made, but it cannot explain why a certain car was made. Science has no bearing on personal agents. The choices of a personal agent are inaccesible to the scientific method. As useful as science is, it is limited, and so therefore not the only source of information we have about reality and how things work. If materialism were true, then this simply would not be so. I can do something for a specific purpose, such as draw a picture. You can measure all sorts of quanifiable aspects, yet science is unable to detect the purpose, the 'why question'.
Another major problem with materialism, is that it cannot account or explain for why there are physical laws or constants in the first place. Given that science presupposes such laws, to explain their existence using science, is, again, circular. Science is more or less contained to explaining how mass-energy behaves within our space-time, yet science is unable to answer 'why' mass-energy behaves within our space-time the way that it does. In the initial conditions of the universe, there were no laws or constants that mass-energy followed. For a brief time, there was total chaos. Order did not arise until later. A ridiculously small time beyond our comprehension, but a period of time nonetheless. Mass-Energy could behave any way, if we assume materialism, it could behave randomly, without order. Yet mass-energy behaves in an ordered way, and an ordered way in which intelligent life is possible.
Furthermore, science is totally unable to provide an account of how space-time and mass-energy came into existence. I'm sure that various people will clamour over string theory, or multiverses or some other some such drivel. Repeat after me: THERE IS NO OBSERVABLE OR TESTABLE EVIDENCE FOR THESE. They are not even theories, but simply nice ideas. Some of them aren't even capable of being tested, and so I wonder why they are even regarded at all, let alone as science. Of course, when you assume materialism, you have to assume an 'anything but God' approach, to be logically consistent you see. Furthermore, none of these actually explain how there is something rather than nothing, let alone why. The idea that the universe created itself 'out of nothing' is logically impossible, and the idea of the multiverse only pushes back the problem. Until we can reach a terminating explanation that not only provides an adequate explanation for our existence, but also its own existence, then we are no closer to an answer, either to how or why we are here. Since science is the only tool avaiable to the materialist, materialism fails and fails spectacularly hard.
Lastly, materialism is logically incoherent and self-refuting. How does one prove materialism? The simple answer is one cannot, given that conscious beings are an impossibility in a materialist universe, by the very definition of materialism. Even if conscious beings were magically possible in a materialist universe, it gets no easier. What are our tools? Science? Science can only inform us about the physical, yet that science cannot provide us information about the non-physical is another point that is lost on materialists even when pointed out to them. Using science to prove the existence of the non-physical would be like trying to detect mass with a ruler or length with a set of scales. You cannot not magically decide that something does not exist, because your measuring tool cannot detect what it is you are trying to discover. So, to turn around and say that the thing your tool can measure is the only thing that does exist is circular reasoning. There are other problems with materialism too. If materialism and natural selection are true at the same time, then we have no way of knowing what beliefs are true or not. Because our brains evolved to aid our survival, not to provide us with true beliefs, and so if we lack a component not beholden to natural selection, such as a non-physical mind, then we have no way of knowing what beliefs are true.
And so there we have it. I, therefore I am. I am, therefore materialism is false. I'll be back, therefore you should stay tuned for later blogs, and, of corse, YouTube videos. I am currently working on my book, but when I get back to my uni room after Christmas, I shall be doing a hilarious video about a YouTube user named BionicDance, who has incurred my wrath for being a douchebag to two thoroughly decent chaps I am friends with, despite their best attempts to reason with them. Thank you, much love and goodnight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
